Developing Integrity University Governance Model in Indonesia · corruption of the sale of assets...

http://ijhe.sciedupress.com International Journal of Higher Education Vol. 8, No. 5; 2019

Published by Sciedu Press 185 ISSN 1927-6044 E-ISSN 1927-6052

Developing Integrity University Governance Model in Indonesia

Salahudin1, Achmad Nurmandi

2, Mukti Fajar

3, Dyah Mutiarin

2, Baldric Siregar

4, Tri Sulistyaningsih

1, Jainuri

1,

Rendra Agusta5, Kisman Karinda

6

1 Government Studies, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang

2Department of Government Affairs and Administration, Jusuf Kallah School of Government, Universitas

Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

3Faculty of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta

4Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Ekonomi YKPN Yogyakarta

5Consulting Sinergi Visi Utama Yogyakarta

6Government Studies, Universitas Muhammadiyah Luwuk

Correspondence: Salahudin, Government Studies, Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Indonesia. Jalan Raya

Tlogomas No. 246, Tlogomas. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: August 3, 2019 Accepted: August 21, 2019 Online Published: August 24, 2019

doi:10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p185 URL: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n5p185

Abstract

This paper aims to explain and design a model for university governance with integrity that is focused on the core

and business processes of university organizations. NVivo applacation had been used in this research. This study

revealed that universities have not shown governance with integrity. The colleges have not established the values of

integrity as key content at the core of their business and the business processes of a university, namely education,

research, society services, human resource management, budgeting, cooperation, infrastructure, and leadership.

Furthermore, corruption practices in university governance have been widespread. Therefore, by using method of

Strategic Analysis Surfacing and Testing (SAST), this paper also formulates a model of university governance with

integrity that puts emphasis on strengthening the core and business processes of university organizations and

strengthening the organizational values of university institutions including culture, norms, regulation, management,

and organizational structure.

Keywords: university governance, integrity, corruption, institution, management

1. Introduction

The management of a university with integrity is a challenge for the government and the managers in Indonesia, as

well as communities around the world. The term integrity has moral and ethical connotations and it does not only

depend on individuals, but also on the context of a university as an institutional organization (Bretag, 2013). Integrity

is uniquely human (Milton, 2015) and it cannot be separated from relations among humans. Cheating behavior

carried out by a student at the college is a simple example of this if examined further. It is not only about the

individual behavior of the student but is also influenced by the institutional management of the university (Sayidah et

al., 2019). In context, several universities in the world are trying to answer this challenge, as can be seen from

several previous studies (Ison, Borman, Dowling, & Ison, 2014; Mirshekary & Lawrence, 2009).

Studies conducted in Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Moldova have found that corruption has been a common

symptom in admissions, grading, and housing (Heyneman 2007). From this perspective, Heyneman (2007), a

researcher concerned with corruption issues in universities, classified previous studies by Hallak & Poisson (2008),

Heyneman, (2007) and Washburn and Gottesman (2010), who tried to map the types and influencing variables of

these symptoms. From the study and based on media news sources in the USA, Russia, and the UK, it was found that

forms of corruption were based on state conditions and other types that were universal. In the USA, the problem of

college integrity regarded issue including fraud, plagiarism, and violence, but in Russia, this was more focused on

bribery in the registration process (Dobbins and Knill, 2017).

A comprehensive study of university governance with integrity in Indonesia has not yet been done (Utama & Utama,

2014). However, every year there are cases of corruption practices in Indonesian universities. Tthese cases spread to



the public. Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) undertook observations from 2006 to August 2016, and there were at

least 37 corruption cases related to universities with 12 patterns of corruption, such as corruption in the procurement

of goods and services that became the most widely used mode, corruption of funds for student research and

scholarship funds, corruption practices using bribery patterns, corruption in the universities internal budget,

corruption of the sale of assets owned by universities, and corruption of the Student Education Development

Assistance Fund (SPP) (Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2016).

Indeed, the Indonesian government has been managing the university governance with integrity by implementing a

number of regulations, namely: 1) Presidential Instruction number 9 of 1977 concerning Operation Control

(1977–1981), tasked with cleaning up illegal levies, controlling stealth money, and regulating local government

officials and the department; 2) The Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia number 87 of 2016

concerning the Net Sweep Task Force, promulgated on October 21, 2016; and 3) Decree of the Minister of Research,

Technology and University of the Republic of Indonesia number 350/M/Kemenristek/2016 concerning the Task

Force for Clean Sweep of Illegal Levies in the Ministry of Research, Technology and University. However, the

corruption practices in university governances run massively (Siaputra et al., 2015). Therefore, a model of integrity

university governance needs to built by exploring university governance problems based on university stakeholder’s

perceptions. According to the problems, university governance model can be arranged reflecting integrity values.

This paper tries to answer the research question which is: What are the integrity problems in Indonesian universities?

What is a suitable governance model for ideal academic integrity in the Indonesian context?

2. Literature Review

2.1 University Governance with Integrity

A University is an organization consisting of the Senate, university leaders, faculty, and courses, each of which has

the power to exercise its authority. As an organization, the universities primary mission is to improve the

effectiveness of governance through structural reforms (Christensen, 2011). Governance refers to how the entity acts

can collectively decide policy and strategy (Kaplan, 2004). The OECD formulated the synthesis of governance or

governance formula as follows:

‘The structures, relationships, and processes through which, at both national and institutional levels, policies

for tertiary education are developed, implemented and reviewed. Governance comprises a complex web

including the legislative framework, the characteristics of institutions, and how they relate to the whole

system, how money is allocated to the institutions and how they are accountable for the way it is spent, as

well as less formal structures and relationships that steer and influence behavior (Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development [OECD] 2003).

Understanding the above statement combines structure, relationships, and the process that is started. In the world of

university governance, it also refers to the structures and processes of an academic institution in achieving balance

between control and influence (Washburn and Gottesman, 2010). This understanding comes from the perspective of

neo-institutionalism that views universities as a network of complex organizations. It is driven by interactions

between individuals and units with the capability and power of the cognitive and orientation of the normative,

respectively within the institutional framework and external situation specifically. Following this perspective,

Washburn and Gottesman (2010) distinguished governance into two types. First, hard organization ‘(rational section)

refers to structures, regulation, and the sanction system, with organizational processes to ensure adherence

(compliance) to policies and procedures. Second, soft governance (interactional) includes social system connections

and interactions within the organization to develop and maintain the individual and group norms.

Furthermore, integrity is the values, attitudes, and behavior of various aspects of college honesty. More than using

institutional theory, the manifestation of the importance of honesty raised the gradation of the level of regulation to

the level of culture. The college has structure and regulations with the ability to create rules and supervise a match

between the rules of behavior and sanctions, and the rewards to its members (Christensen, 2011). Moreover, the

college has a normative pillar consisting of dimension values and norms prescriptive, evaluative, and liabilities.

Pillar culture is values, attitudes, and behaviors of honesty that are not only carried out as a duty, but also as a social

habit (Christensen, 2011). Kaplan (2004) describes the organizational practices that are not otherwise traditional

rituals and norms. Heyneman (2007) by using the theory of institution, also makes the gradation level of

institutionalization to be the value of honesty in college starting from (a) reform of the structure to reduce the

potential for corruption, (b) improved management, (c) measures to prevent corruption, and (d) sanction.

According to the elaboration above, university governance with integrity can be formulated as the structure and



process of a university where the policy in the field of education, research, community service development,

implementation and review that is relatively supported by the system, and social interactions within or outside the

organization, based on the norms of honesty. The implementation gradation values of honesty in college follows the

pattern of the lowest level being S (structure), then M (management), R (regulative), N (norm), and C (culture)

(Dobbins & Knill, 2017).

2.2 Corruption Practices in University Governance

Governance of universities with integrity faces severe challenges in various parts of the world. Sawyer et al. (2006)

analyzed the phenomenon of ‘corporatization’ (p. 11) in which universities with structures, such as companies, make

decisions in the field of education and administration, often profit driven rather than for intangible values, such as

academic integrity and truth. Universities in Chile could become an example for the relationship between governance

and lack of morals in university institutions (Leihy & Salazar, 2017). Corruption is the most fundamental problem in

university governance and corruption practices in education, especially in colleges, are not a new phenomenon

(Gilmore MEd et al., 2010). The phenomenon of corruption in a university is common and occurs in many countries,

especially in developing countries (Heyneman, 2007). The researcher noted that corruption in the management of

university systems in various countries takes place in a variety of ways. For Brazil in particular, this includes

corruption governance of human resources through the withdrawal of money from a prospective faculty and staff

who want to become permanent employees and lecturers at a college. Furthermore, in Indonesia, corruption takes

place in the form of faculty roles which require students to pay thesis fees (ghost teacher). In the Philippines, the

phenomenon of corruption occurs in the distribution and procurement of textbooks Hallak & Poisson (2008).

Corruption practices in universities continue to have a negative impact on their governance and the human resources

in a country, including low public confidence in the college, poor quality of education, low competitiveness of

scholars and the nation's youth, and the erosion of national values within a culture of corruption across generations

(Hallak & Poisson 2008; Heyneman, 2007). The modes of corruption that occur in university institutions include

extra tuition fees for graduate student’s courses, additional fees for activities of institutional visits, delay or absence

of lecturers in lecture hours, extortion from faculty to students, the payment of administrative fees for borrowing

books, and the maintenance of course grade and diplomas being legalized. Siaputra et al., (2015) examined the

academic integrity of universities in Indonesia explicitly. Siaputra et al., (2015) found that the governance of a

university was still marred by acts of academic violations committed by lecturers, invigilators, staff employees, and

students.

Corruption can be made through the actions of student’s cheating on tests, where a student is in the process of

undertaking a test subject and is trying to find and take advantage of an opportunity to open/review notes related to

the exam (Bretag, 2013). If a student fails to cheat, they could then take more corruptive actions and meet professors

to ask for ‘wisdom’, so as to receive a passing grade (Gallant, 2017). Corruption practices in colleges continue

massively, so this phenomenon is very dangerous for the existence of the state. The aspect of corruption in a

university also indicates that educational institutions are not free from corruption, even though colleges are

educational institutions aimed to make and shape the culture of the nation's dignity and integrity(Macfarlane, Zhang,

& Pun, n.d; Palanski & Yammarino, 2009).

Table 1. Taxonomy on corruption practices in university governance

University Governance

Areas

Corruption practices Reference

Education and

Teaching

Bribery:

Students bribe a teacher to change the value of

the course grade.

Students pay writing service task subjects and

the final project (thesis and dissertation).

Lecturer forcing students to give bribes to the

faculty in order to facilitate the learning

process.

Lecturer forcing students to pay fees for

additional assistance for students who score

below the passing standard.

(Orkodashvili, 2011)



Research Program Collusion:

Lecturer ignores thesis plagiarism action

undertaken by students.

Lecturers and students are mutually quoting

though not in accordance with the needs of

individual papers.

Reviewers university research faculty research

proposals pushing though not meet the

standards and regulations of the university.

Bribery:

Universities receive research grants from other

parties by bribing party funder of research

grants.

Fraud:

Lecturers and students conducting unethical

research study.

Lecturers and students manipulate research

report.

Faculty and student research report is the

result of the previous research report in order

to duplication the academic work of that

Lobbying:

Faculty and student research grants to lobby

governments and companies.

Faculty and students are researching for the

benefit of promotional products company (not

the interests of the development of science).

(Hallak & Poisson,

2008)

Society Empowerment Bribery:

University a grant of devotion from the other

party by way of bribing the donor grants

devotion.

Fraud:

Faculty and student service programs

organized not according to plan and the target

in the proposal of the proposed service.

Lecturers and students manipulate devotion

report.

Reports dedication of faculty and students is

the result of duplication of previous service

reports.

(Rumyantseva, 2015)

Financial Governance Fraud:

Manipulation of financial statements college.

Manipulation use student scholarship fund.

Collusion:

The use of university funds for personal and

(Hallak & Poisson,

2008)



group interests.

College embezzlement for personal and group

interests.

Academic services Favoritism:

Faculty and staff serve students based on emotional

intimacy, kinship, ethnicity, and regionalism.

Bribery:

Staff universities require students to pay for services

such as laboratory services, libraries, and other

academic administrative services.

Collusion:

Students and employees of collusion to facilitate

graduation.

(Denisova-schmidt,

Huber, Leontyeva, &

Denisova-schmidt,

2016)

HRD Governance Favoritism:

Promotion for faculty and staff on the basis of

favoritism.

HR placement at the office of PT does not

match the capability and capacity.

Collusion:

Recruitment of new students on the basis of

collusion between university leaders,

employees, faculty, parents and guardians of

prospective students.

Systems engineering and new admissions

policy to support personal and group interests.

(Denisova-schmidt et

al., 2016)

Facilities and

infrastructure

Collusion:

Procurement of goods and services on the

basis of political and economic interests of the

university leaders and contractors.

Procurement of goods and services is not done

openly.

Rumyantseva, NL

(2005). Taxonomy of

corruption in higher

education. Peabody

Journal of Education,

80 (1), 81-92.

Organizational

Governance

Conflict of interest:

University leaders prioritize personal

interests rather than the interests of higher

education organization.

University leaders put forward the pragmatic

interests rather than the vision, mission, and

goals of the organization college.

Favoritism:

Organizational governance on the basis of

nepotism between the parties who have

authority in every area and sector of higher

education organizations.

The organization's management does not fit

the university's quality standards.

(Baryshnikova,

Vashurina,

Sharykina, Chinnova,

& Sergeev, 2019;

Denisova-schmidt,

2017; Hallak &

Poisson, 2008;

Orkodashvili, 2011;

Rumyantseva, 2015)



Leadership Evolving doors:

Government officials intervene politically in

the rector elections.

College leadership model was not built in a

democratic and fair.

(Baryshnikova et al.,

2019; Hallak &

Poisson, 2008;

Orkodashvili, 2011;

Rumyantseva, 2015)

Cooperation Fraud:

College runs a cooperation agreement with

the other parties honestly.

Manipulation of cooperation for the benefit

of the accreditation document.

The taxonomy of types and corrupt practices in the governance of universities in table 1 shows that corruption in

higher education is a form of governance of higher education that is not integrity in the field of education and

teaching, research, service, governance of human resources, financial governance, academic services, infrastructure,

organization, leadership, and cooperation. Therefore, the definition of corruption in higher education is different

from the definition of corruption in general, which showed the practice of abuse of power and authority for personal

interests related to the budget (state finance). Corrupt practices in higher education are not only related to the budget

of the college but also related to the sale and purchase value, plagiarism, cheating, buying and selling scientific work

of lecturers to students.

3. Method

This study used a qualitative research approach and was conducted through six stages, namely literature, preparation

of models of governance of college integrity, validation of models and instruments by the manager of the college, the

revision of models and instruments, model validation, and instruments by the regulator, and the drafting of a

regulation model and instrument as shown in Figure 1 below

Figure 1. Research process

Data from this study were collected using several methods as follows: interview, focus group discussion (FGD),

questionnaire, and documentation. Interview questions were based on the literature reviews and data of college

governance issues exposed in the media that answers the research questions. The interview questions addressed to

key informants were determined by purposive sampling. Key informants were selected from the questionnaire

respondents who occupied important positions and roles as well as researchers and observers of higher education

governance in Indonesia. The key informants interviews are the Rector of Universitas Islam Negeri Pontianak, Vice

Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of Universitas Tanjungpura, researchers on college integrity of Universitas

Tanjungpura, Head of General Administration of Universitas Muhammadiyah Pontianak, Head of the General

Administration of Academic Politeknik Pontianak, Vice Rector for General and Financial of Politeknik Pontianak,

former rector of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, five lecturers and researchers governance of higher



education of Universitas Gadjah Mada, a professor of law of Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, a commisioner

of Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia, two researchers of the Corruption Eradication Commission of

Indonesia, five researchers for PUKAT (Center for the Study of Anti Corruption/Pusat Studi Anti Korupsi), and five

researchers for GEMATI (Movement Transparency community for Indonesia/Gerakan Masayarakat untuk

Transparansi Indonesia).

FGD has been conducted in three cities that are Solo City, Pontianak City, and Yogyakarta City. Three of the cities

are area of state Higher Education in Indonesia. Most Indonesian people come to the area to take higher education

degree. Three of the cities have lot of scientists in different fields, NGO activist on education advocations, and mass

media. However, there are some cases that they have not shown integrity values in higher education governance

(Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2016). Therefore, FGD was implemented in the cities. Participants of FGD are the

official members of state higher universities of Indonesia who are from the University of Gadjah Mada (HR Director,

Dean of the Faculty of Economics and researcher governance of universities integrity), the Director of Graduate

State University Yogyakarta, vice Rector for Human Resources and Finance of University Tanjongpura Pontianak,

Rector of Pontianak State Islamic University, Rector of the State University of Sunan Kalijaga, Vice Rector of

Academic Affairs University of Surakarta, Lecturer of Indonesia Surakarta Institute of Arts, and the Rector of the

Politeknik Pontianak. Moreover, the partcipants of FGD are NGO Activists related to higher education governance

that are PUKAT director (the Center for Anti-Corruption Studies /Pusat Studi Anti Korupsi) and director GEMATI

(Social Movement for Transparency of Indonesia /Gerakan Transparansi untuk Masyarakat Indonesia).

Before the implementation of FGD, authors of this paper arranged paper draft that are consist of higher education

integrity model, some cases on low integrity of higher education governance, and questionnaire on the higher

education integrity indicators. The paper draft was given to the members of FGD. The participants of FGD read the

paper draft before FGD has been conducted in the three cities. The study also used data documents related to the

governance of higher education namely accreditation and report documents of college performance and the

performance of lecturers from the University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta State University, University of

Tanjongpura Pontianak, State Islamic University in Pontianak, State University Sunan Kalijaga , State University of

Surakarta, Indonesia Surakarta Art Institute, and Polytechnic Pontianak, research report documents of higher

education governance of NGOs PUKAT and GEMATI, and news / information on governance issues college in the

print media and online media.

Determination of 165 respondents conducted by purposive sampling, in which respondents have been selected based

on roles, knowledge, and experience in the areas of governance and colleges. Details of 165 respondents were 20

university leaders (rectors, vice-rectors, directors of bureau chief of public and private universities), 10 researchers

areas of governance colleges, 30 lecturers, 40 staff college, 45 students from public and private universities, and 20

NGO activists college governance areas. Total respondents were drawn proportionally from the three regions of 33%

of the city of Yogyakarta, 33% of the city of Solo, and 33% from Pontianak, Indonesia. Of the 165 respondents, 125

respondents fill and return the questionnaires, in which 125 respondents were 15 university leaders (rector, vice

chancellor, director, and head of state and private university bureaus), 10 researchers in university governance, 20

lecturers, 30 university staff, 40 students from state and private tertiary institutions, and 10 NGO activists in the field

of university governance.

Among the 125 respondents were selected 15 key informants. Key informants were taken based on roles, knowledge,

and experience in the field of higher education governance. Key informants of this study are Rector of Universitas

Islam Negeri Pontianak, Vice Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture of Universitas Tanjungpura, researcher on

university governance with integrity of Universitas Tanjungpura, Head of Public Administration of University of

Muhammadiyah Pontianak, Head of the General Administration of Academic of Politeknik Pontianak, Vice Rector

for Public Affairs and Finance of Politeknik Pontianak, former rector of Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, 5

lecturers/researchers of university governance of Gadjah Mada University, a lecturer of law for Universitas

Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, two researchers at the Corruption Eradication Commission, five researchers for PUKAT

(the Center for Anti-Corruption Studies/Pusat Studi Anti Korupsi), and five researchers for GEMATI (Social

Movement for Transparency of Indonesia/Gerakan Masyarakat untuk Transparansi Indonesia).

This research used Nvivo 12 plus application to analyze the data FGD, interviews, and documentation. NVivo

application is one of the qualitative research data analysis application that has been used by many qualitative

researchers around the world (Sotiriadou, Popi, Brouwers, Jessie, Le, 2014). This application helps researchers

visualize and categorize data FGD,interviews, and documentation. Furthermore, to develop models of university

governance with integrity needs to use the method of Strategic Analysis Surfacing and Testing (SAST). SAST carried



out through the application of FGD, interview, documentation, deployment and filling the questionnaire and the

analysis of the results of the questionnaire.

Focus group discussion and interview were conducted to identify the problems of governance university based on

opinions, knowledge, and experience of university stakeholders. The problems identified in FGD,interview, and

documentation were analyzed using NVivo 12 plus. Problems identified so-called strategic issues related to the

governance of the college integrity. The strategic issue used as a basis for constructing a questionnaire was filled by

125 respondents and analyzed using the method of Strategic Analysis Surfacing and Testing (SAST) that is to obtain

a degree of certainty and the interests of the strategic assumptions formulated earlier and who had poured into the

questionnaires filled out by 125 respondents from college in three regions (Solo, Yogyakarta, and Pontianak).

3. Results

3.1 The Integrity Problems of Indonesian Universities

One of the crucial problems of university governance in Indonesia is that most of the universities have not obtained

the values of integrity as part of university governance. There are several issues related to college governance

integrity where corruption practices are running into academic affairs, such as education and teaching programs,

research projects, and the social services program. These academic corruption actions are not only related to money

but also to the context of sexuality, in which academic staff make academic and public services for students easier.

Conversely, the students may instead make sexual advances on the staff. Moreover, other integrity issues of

university governance include the manipulation of data for institution accreditation, plagiarism, cheating, markup

research, social service project funds, and other matters.

In general, corruption of Indonesian universities includes the embezzlement of funds for student scholarships,

Corporate Social Responsibility fund, grants, internal funds of the university, and research funding. In addition,

corruption in other forms is also prevalent in Indonesian university governance, such as gratification, fake diplomas,

license to study programs, buying and selling of diplomas, selling value, manipulation of student funds, transactions

in the election of the rector, bribery for new admissions, transactional in the procurement of goods and services, and

manipulation of fund asset sales in a university. Based on data from the 105 news (online and print media) from

January 2014 until December 2017 were found types of corruption in Indonesian universities as figure 2.

Figure 2. Types of corruption in Indonesian universities

Based on the above data, the practice of buying and selling of diplomas is common in most universities in Indonesia,

where a university sells certificates to the those who require them through data manipulation of lectures, student

identity, and a study of students so that the diplomas sold are considered legal. Moreover, corruption in universities



was also common in the procurement of goods and services, where procurement was done on a transactional basis

between the university and the private sector. The corruption practices taking place are both massive and systematic.

The data at least described a lack of integrity in the practices of a college. FGD with PUKAT (the Center for

Anti-Corruption Studies/Pusat Studi Anti Kotupsi) and GEMATI (Social Movement for Transparency of

Indonesia/Gerakan Masayarakat untuk Transparansi Indonesia) revealed some practices of big corruption in

Universities, for example, related to ‘Buy Flag’. This corruption mode is where the name of an institution (company

X) is used to conduct a study in name only, without undertaking the study process.

Furthermore, another form of corruption is the concealment of posted salaries. This mode has long been practiced,

for example, pricing tickets for Garuda then replacing them with cheaper airlines or using the railways. This practice

in which there would be a Time Results of Operations (SHU) that would be divided among the researchers only, is

less when the work is done by an assistant. By the UGM (Universitas Gadjah Mada), using patterns of indirect costs,

this would be known at assistant level only, namely for tax cuts. If there were inefficiencies, these would go to the

agency, not the residual term. Another corruption behavior occurs usually in the form of deposited funds financing

patterns that were performed using a self-managed system, this form of corruption is a way to enter into the activities

of staff, once the entire staff deputies come in to the committee (FGD in University of Gadjah Mada, 2018).

Furthermore, FGD in Solo shows that there is corruption in the governance of higher education in Indonesia. The

participants reveal the kinds of corruption in higher education among them corruption research grants and devotion,

bribes go to college, buying and selling value, duplication of research, conflicts of interest college leaders, the

deviant behavior of teaching staff (lecturers), corruption, administrative costs of service academic, and manipulation

of financial statements. Then, FGD in Pontianak city also showed the same problem that there is corruption in

college. The participants in Pontianak emphasis on academic, administrative corruption such as bribe to go to college,

cutting research costs by university leaders, and conflicts of interest college leadership.

Then, the analysis NVivo against FGD in Yogyakarta, Solo, and Pontianak revealed that corruption in higher

education takes place in the form of administrative corruption universities, corruption research grants and

publications, corruption education funds, conflict of interest, lack of professionalism governance of universities, and

corruption of college development. The fifth form of corruption is a serious concern of the FGD like NVivo analysis

visualization results shown in Figure 3. Visualization NVivo as in figure 3, illustrates that there is a density of

attention FGD against corruption and dedication to research grants, college administrative corruption, and corruption

education. The attention density shows that FGD participants that there have been very serious corruption in the field

of research, publications, education, and university administration affairs in Indonesia. Then, the FGD participants

also considered that the lack of professionalism of university governance, conflicts of interest and corruption of

development funds are also part of the corruption in higher education should be handled seriously.

Figure 3. Group Analysis NVivo 12 plus



Image visualization NVivo 12 in figure 3 above can be mapped quantitatively in the form of a matrix coding radar

analysis NVivo 12 as follows.

Figure 4. Matrix coding of analisis NVivo 12 plus

In line with the analysis visualization NVivo 12 previously described above (figure 3), the coding matrix analysis

NVivo 12 as in the figure 4 also revealed the extent of the problem of corruption in higher education which is

measured using a scale of 4-40. 4-40 scale shows the level of informant ratings of several corruption issues in college.

The higher the number the higher the scale indicates informant ratings to the problems of corruption and bad

governance of the college. The results of the analysis of NVivo 12 as in figure 4 above shows that corruption

academic administration (scale 36), corruption in education affairs (scale 28), the low professionalism of governance

of higher education (scale 24), and corruption in research grant (scale 20) are the corruption that often occurs in

college in Indonesia. Even though conflict of interest (scale 12), and corruption of constructions (scale 8), the areas

also needs policy priority of university stakeholders to support university governance with integrity.

3.2 Design a Suitable Model of College Governance with Integrity in an Indonesian Context

Based on the results of the focus group discussion (FGD), expert interviews by in-depth interview, and Nvivo

analysis as above, the fundamental problem with university governance is a lack of stakeholder commitment to a

college in order to realize college governance with integrity in ten areas, such as education and teaching, research,

community service, human resources governance, financial governance, infrastructure, academic services, leadership,

organization, and cooperation. Impact of stakeholders’ low commitment is corruption running massively in higher

education in the form of administrative corruption universities, corruption research grants and publications,

corruption education funds, conflict of interest, lack of professionalism governance of universities, and corruption of

college development. This paper has tried to develop a college governance model of integrity, which refers to the

issue of governance of universities in Indonesia. Also, the model design was based on an approach of the analysis of

certainty and the interest variable of the governance of the affairs of university that were considered important by the

stakeholders of the college. Analysis of certainty was conducted to understand the parts of college governance which

impact on the good and bad governance of a college. In other ways, the analysis of interest was to understand the

college governance areas that impact on the good and bad governance of a university. The degree of certainty and the

interest analysis can be seen in the chart below (Figure 5).



Figure 5. The degree of certainty and interest graph for university governance with integrity

Assumptions for Quadrant I: there are 10 areas that have a degree of certainty and a high level of interest to the

establishment of university governance with integrity (y: 6.00-7.00). Assumptions for Quadrant II: there are five

areas that have a low degree of certainty (x: 4.50-6.00) and five areas the high level of interest (y: 6.00-7.00) towards

the establishment of the university governance with integrity. Assumptions for Quadrant III: there are three areas that

have high levels of certainty and a low level of interest towards the establishment of the college (x: 5.50-6.00 and y:

5.50-6.00). Assumptions for the quadrant IV: there are five areas that have a high degree of certainty (x: 6.00-7.00)

and 5 area of importance is low (y:5.50-6.00) on the formation of university governance with integrity. Based on the

analysis, stakeholders of Indonesian universities focus on ten areas of university governance that have high score in

certainty and interest supporting university governance with integrity as in table 2 below.

Table 2. Interest and certainty variables of university governance

No Ten areas of University Governance Certainty Interest

1 Education and Teaching 6,33 6.70

2 Community service 6.93 6.70

3 Research 6.95 6,64

4 Management Infrastructures 6.42 6,31

5 Academic Administrative Services 6.51 6,18

6 Organization 6.25 6.13

7 Leadership 6.28 6.08

8 Financial Governance 6.43 6.06

9 Cooperation 6,15 5.72

10 Human Resources Governance 5.54 5.35



Table 2 above also confirms that the assumption was positioned in the establishment of governance model colleges

of integrity that is ten areas of governance colleges integrity: education and teaching, community service, research,

infrastructure management, academic services, organization, leadership, budget management, cooperation, and

human resource management is a strategic area of concern in building college governance system integrity. This

analysis was based on the results of questionnaires on certainty and interests, as indicated by the stakeholders of the

college. It consisted of variables filtered with a degree of certainty as well as the high interests of each area of

governance of a uiversity.

Therefore, this paper considers that universities need regulatory support, structure, management, and norms as a

culture (Christensen, 2011). Four main elements must support the implementation of the values of integrity in a

university: 1) Creation of regulations support the planting of integrity values (regulation); 2) enforcement of integrity

as the norm (norm); 3) strengthening the management of the planting of integrity values (management); and 4)

creating a culture that supports the internalization of the values of honesty, fairness, and professionalism (culture)

(Kaplan, 2004). Through the five primary elements, university governance with integrity can be realized gradually.

Figure 6. Model of Indonesian university governance with integrity

The model above (figure 6) describes ten areas of college governance with integrity that are an integral part of single

unitary university management divided into two major elements of core business and supporting system (Dobbins

and Knill, 2017). In this case, Dobbins & Knill (2017) explained a scope of university governance that included

businesses and core supporting systems as a buffer for college governance. The core business of the universities

quality management includes education and teaching, research, and dedication. Moreover, supporting the college

management system includes human resources management, financial governance, infrastructure, academic

administrative services, organizations, leadership, and cooperation. Therefore, a university governance model of

integrity can be focused on core structuring and the supporting system of university management. Governance and

supporting the core business of the college system place values of integrity, such as honesty, professionalism, and

fairness, in supporting the realization of college integrity (integrity of university) (Heyneman, 2007; and Milton,

2015).

4. Discussion

Evidence from this research clearly identifies that university governance is faced with several problems that make a

university unable to achieve governance with integrity. The fundamental problem is that corruption runs deeply

within the colleges. Corruption practices in a university occur in various ways, such as misappropriation of grant

funds, purchase of diploma certificates, selling the value of courses and thesis, manipulation of program reporting on

research and service, plagiarism, bribery, budget corruption in scholarships, leadership selection that is not

procedural, the arrangement of human resources that is not professional, and employee recruitment that is not

consistent. Based on the Nvivo analysis, there are five corruption forms of Indonesian universities that are corruption

in academic administration affairs, corruption in research and publication, corruption in education program, lack of

professional in university governance, and corruption in university building construction affairs.

Corruption in academic affairs is corruption done by the staff and university leaders concerning academic services. In

this regard, staff and university leaders in providing services to students in a discriminatory manner. The best service



is given to students who have a close relationship with staff and the top leadership of the university. These findings

reinforce the findings of research carried out by Denisova-schmidt et al. (2016) and Orkodashvili (2011), where both

of them in different studies revealed the existence of collusion and nepotism in the academic services at the college.

Later, corruption and dedication to research funds also occur at universities in Indonesia. In this case, faculty and

university leaders to use the funds for the benefit of research and dedication to others, cutting and markup fund

research and service. Corrupt practices also run in fund research and service in some countries such as Argentina,

Peru, and Uganda. Hallak & Poisson (2008) said that corruption fund research and service in college is a common

practice at universities in Argentina, Peru, Uganda, Africa.

One of the corrupt practices is also common in universities in Indonesia, namely corruption education in the form of

bribery and trading value between faculty and students. Denisova-schmidt et al. (2016) revealed that corruption in

higher education takes place in the form of bribery between faculty and students, plagiarism, and strengthening

additional cost to students outside of the provisions in force. Orkodashvili (2011) also find their collusion and

nepotism among the faculty and students in the determination of grades and graduation. Heyneman (2007) revealed

that in colleges Also, there was corruption in the selection of new students, the accreditation of the college, the

implementation of research programs, and service programs. Ison et al. (2014) also revealed the most significant

issue of corruption in colleges was corruption in the form of plagiarism, copying, duplication of research reports,

purchase value, and bribery.

Then, the other corrupt practices in higher education in the form of lack of professionalism governance of

universities and the markup college building fund. Baryshnikova et al. (2019) revealed that the mode of corruption in

college together with the mode of government corruption and the politicians in government institutions such as

markup project, gratuities, and kickbacks among stakeholders. The mode also occurred at the college. Corruption in

the form of conflict of interest also coloring any decision-making in higher education (Hallak & Poisson, 2008).

The results of SAST analysis and calculation Cartesian quadrant in this study as described previously insisted that

the five corruption form are corrupt practices taking place in the ten areas of governance universities namely: the

five corruption cases can be explained into ten areas: education and teaching, research, service, human resources,

finance, facilities and infrastructure management, academic administrative services, leadership, organization, and

cooperation. The findings of this research confirm that the governance of universities in Indonesia shows the

university governance with integrity yet.

Therefore, developing a model for university governance with integrity needs to be focused on these ten areas of

university governance. The implementation of integrity values in university governance must be supported by four

main elements: 1) making regulations that support the planting of integrity values (regulation); 2) strengthening the

management of planting integrity values (management); 3) enforcement of integrity as the norm (norm); and (4)

creating a culture that supports the internalization of the values of honesty, fairness, and professionalism (culture).

Through these five primary elements, university governance with integrity can be realized gradually. The results of

the analysis confirms Washburn and Gottesman's (2010) assertion that university governance improvement should be

focused on managing institution values, such as structures, regulation and the sanction system, organizational

processes, individual behavior, and group norms.

Heyneman (2007) argued that the strategy for realizing college governance with integrity and reducing the risk due

to corruption in university were: First, reformation of university structures. In this regard, universities must design a

structure that minimizes the emergence of an independent institution for exam courses and final projects, an

independent agency for an accredited college, independent agency to issue license accreditation, a policy of college

ownership being institutionalized, and the separation of educational affairs from the college business unit. Second,

reformation of university management is through an arrangement of university institutions involving professional

organizations, with public and independent institutions supervising college performance. Third, preventive action to

evaluate and monitor the performance of leadership, faculty, staff, and students, to enforce the code of ethics on

leaders, faculty, staff, and students, report cases of corruption, create a system of financial transparency, create and

strengthen media publication as a tool of control, and implement anti-corruption education involving an

anti-corruption agency. Fourth, placing sanctions against are the perpetrators of corruption in a college. Enforcement

of sanctions would have to be done through criminal sanctions for the perpetrators of corruption by professionals in

universities, publishing the names of the criminals and dismissing the perpetrator due to the criminal behavior.

Indeed, there were differences between the findings of this study and the results of the analysis of strategies to realize

university governance with integrity compiled by Heyneman (2007).For instance, the focus of the study conducted

by Heyneman (2007) was for a strategy to realize a college governance of integrity against extraordinary acts of



corruption. Whereas, the focus of this research was governance and supporting the core business college system as

seen from the perspective of the fundamental values of integrity (not only from the perspective of corruption).

Second, Heyneman (2007) divided the strategy of realizing a university with integrity into four parts that consisted of

reforming the structure, management, enforcing norms, and giving sanctions to perpetrators of corruption. The

strategies by Heyneman (2007) are a non-comprehensive strategy in realizing a university with integrity, as the

objective of the strategy does not reach the level of effort to include the internalization of integrity values in

university governance (Denisova-schmidt et al., 2016).

Shortly, this paper emphasizes that ten areas of governance can be used as objects of attention for stakeholders to

realize college governance with integrity. Also, these ten areas are used as objects of assessment by university

institutions with integrity, where stakeholders can measure the integrity of a university by seeing and understanding

the governance of all ten areas that cover the core business and support the university system.

5. Conclusion

This paper reveals that corruption in universities has been taking place in five corruption namely in the form of

academic affairs administration, corruption in research and publication, corruption in education program, less

professional in university governance, conflict of interest, and corruption in construction affairs. The five corruption

runs in the ten governance areas that are: 1) Education and teaching, 2) study, 3) community service, 4) management

of human resources, 5) financial governance, 6) infrastructure, 7) academic services, 8) leadership, 9) the

organization, and 10) cooperation. Corruption is not only related to embezzlement of a college, but also associated

with the buying and selling of diplomas, grades, plagiarism, cheating, markup projects, and extortion. The corrupt

practices show that university governance has not become a form of integrity. In that case, it needs a model of

university governance that emphasizes strengthening the core and business processes of a college.

The core business of a college covers education, research, and service. While college business processes consist of

human resources, budget, information technology, service, leadership, infrastructure, cooperation, organization, core,

and business processes that need to support college organizational values among the college culture, norms,

regulation, management, and the organizational structure which must support the implementation or realization of

university governance with integrity. Therefore, the model describes the overall integrity of college grades and

activities of the organization in which the core, process, and values are integrated in one unified system of

governance for a college. The application of the model requires goodwill from stakeholders directly related to the

university world.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank rector of Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang, Director of Jusuf Kalla School of Government,

Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta, Anti Corruption Comission, Republic of Indonesia.

References

Baryshnikova, M., Vashurina, E., Sharykina, E., Chinnova, I. & Sergeev, Y. (2019). The Role of Flagship

Universities in a Region:Transformation Models. Voprosy Obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, (1),

8-43. https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-8-43

Bretag, T. (2013). Challenges in Addressing Plagiarism in Education. PLoS Medicine, 10(12), e1001574.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001574

Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms : potential problems of more autonomy ? Higher education,

(123), 503-517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9401-z

Denisova-schmidt, E. (2017). The Challenges of Academic Integrity. Retrieved from

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pubs/CIHE Perspective/Perspective, 2017 No

cropsFINAL.pdf

Denisova-schmidt, E., Huber, M., Leontyeva, E. & Denisova-schmidt, E. (2016). Do Anti-Corruption Educational

Campaigns Reach Students ? Evidence from two cities in Russia and Ukraine. Вопросы образования, 2016

https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2016-1-61-83

Dobbins, M. & Knill, C. (2017). Higher education governance in France, Germany, and Italy: Change and variation

in the impact of transnational soft governance. Policy and Society, 36(1), 67-88.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1278868

Gallant, T. B. (2017). Academic Integrity as a Teaching & Learning Issue : From Theory to Practice Academic



Integrity as a Teaching & Learning Issue : From Theory to Practice. Theory Into Practice, 56(2), 88-94.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1308173

Gilmore MEd, J., Strickland, D., Timmerman, B., Maher, M. & Feldon, D. (2010). Weeds in the flower garden: An

exploration of plagiarism in graduate students’ research proposals and its connection to enculturation, ESL, and

contextual factors. © International Journal for Educational Integrity, 6(1), 13-28. Retrieved from

http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/journals/index.php/IJEI/

Hallak, J. & Poisson, M. (2008). Corrupt schools, corrupt universities: What can be done? International Institute for

Educational Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057921003703934

Heyneman, S. P. (2007). Three universities in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan: The struggle against corruption

and for social cohesion. Prospects, 37(3), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9037-2

Indonesia Corruption Watch. (2016). Korupsi di Perguruan Tinggi. Retrieved from

https://www.antikorupsi.org/id/news/korupsi-di-perguruan-tinggi

Ison, D. C., Borman, G. D., Dowling, N. M. & Ison, D. C. (2014). Does the online environment promote plagiarism?

A comparative study of dissertations from brick-and-mortar versus online institutions. Journal of Online

Learning & Teaching, 10(2), 272-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-015-9233-7

Kaplan, G. E. (2004). Do governance structures matter? New Directions for Higher Education, 2004(127), 23-34.

https://doi.org/10.1002/he.153

Leihy, P. & Salazar, J. M. (2017). The moral dimension in Chilean higher education’s expansion. Higher Education,

74(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0034-8

Macfarlane, B., Zhang, J. & Pun, A. (n.d.). Studies in Higher Education Academic integrity : a review of the

literature, (August 2012), 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709495

Milton, C. L. (2015). Ethics and Academic Integrity. Nursing Science Quarterly, 28(1), 18-20.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318414558620

Mirshekary, S. & Lawrence, A. D. K. (2009). Academic and business ethical misconduct and cultural values: A cross

national comparison. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(3), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-009-9093-0

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher

Education. Education Policy Analysis, 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1787/epa-2003-en

Orkodashvili, M. (2011). Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotism in Higher Education and the Labor Market in Georgia.

European Education, 43(2), 32-53. https://doi.org/10.2753/eue1056-4934430202

Palanski, M. E. & Yammarino, F. J. (2009). Integrity and leadership : A multi-level conceptual framework. The

Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 405-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.008

Rumyantseva, N. L. (2015). Taxonomy of Corruption in Higher Education. Peabody Journal of Education,

80(January 2005), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930pje8001

Sawyer, K. R., Johnson, J. & Holub, M. (2006). The Necessary Illegitimacy of the Whistleblower. Ssrn, 1-21.

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.917316

Sayidah, N., Ady, S. U., Supriyati, J., Sutarmin, S., Winedar, M., Mulyaningtyas, A. & Assagaf, A. (2019). Quality

and University Governance in Indonesia. International Journal of Higher Education, 8(4), 10.

https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n4p10

Siaputra, I. B., Santosa, D. A., Surabaya, U., Timur, J., Surabaya, U. & Java, E. (2015). Academic Integrity

Campaign in Indonesia, Handbook of Academic Integrity, (2014), 1-9.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-079-7

Sotiriadou, Popi, Brouwers & Jessie, Le, A. (2014). Choosing a qualitative data analysis tool : A comparison of

NVivo and Leximancer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/11745398.2014.902292 Copyright

Utama, C. A. & Utama, S. (2014). Corporate governance, size and disclosure of related party transactions, and firm

value: Indonesia evidence. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance.

https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.23

Washburn, R. S. & Gottesman, M. E. (2010). Transcription termination maintains chromosome integrity.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(2), 792-797. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009564108

Developing Integrity University Governance Model in Indonesia · corruption of the sale of assets...

Documents

Transcript of Developing Integrity University Governance Model in Indonesia · corruption of the sale of assets...